Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.

you have not addressed any of my previous points concerinng authority and source and you are avoiding the point

And it is likely that you, brian and PaulK never will, considering the fact, that you are now burying your heads in the ground and acting like children nearly.However, my guess is that you are not that simplistic, as to miss my pointTruely PD, do you not see the point i am making or are you simply being silly? It does if God is its source, its authority and maintanance. it does if it is for Gods purposes.When you choose to entertain the reality of God in and from the same context you are deriving your arguments, that speak of this kingdom or that kingdom, then you will be honest with your readers and yourself. Your right, if God has nothing to do with it. But if he doesnt, who cares anyway. the choice is yours to be honest with your readers and yourself.Fortunately the 'Pieces' and the 'Parts' as you describe my arguments are the a part of the context and make it a spiritual kingdom in every sense of the WORDSee you in realityEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

And now we are back at square one with the Humanists, demonstrating that jesus was more than sucessful, for which Gods plans were intended.read the following passage and note very carefully all the specifics and details involved in the nature and purpose of Christs church and kingdomFailure, I doubt itEphesians chapter 1
1 "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints that are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:5 having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,8 which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,9 making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him10 unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, I say,11 in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;12 to the end that we should be unto the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ:13 in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,14 which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory.15 For this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is among you, and the love which ye show toward all the saints,16 cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him;18 having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,19 and what the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to that working of the strength of his might20 which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places,21 far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:22 and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church,23 which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. "Wow that just about wraps up every single thing needed in a kingdom in the form of the church.Kingdom, smingdom, use any word you choose, it all adds up to God carrying out his eternal plans. Some people miss the kingdom, because they are not looking in the right placeWait, whats that Paul? You mean theres more?Ephesians chapter 211"Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men) 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."A Spiritual kingdom from start to finishEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

And ignoring the point I am making and evading answering any questions directly does not help your causeHave I not made myself clear, that even an fifth grader could not understand my argument, PaulK? here it is again then since you wont give up the dumb card. Are you smarter than a fifth grader Paul?Did the Lord actually make the following statement or was this just the ramblings of some crazed guy named Nathan2 Samuel 7
" 'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you:If the Lord establishes a kingdom, and it is by his authority, power and administration, is it therefore a spiritual kingdom, regardless of how long it last.give me another term to describe God annointing and establishing something that would not be considered spiritual in character No I need inspiration in the form of an Apostle to explain all of his intentions and purposesJust answer the simple question Paul without repeating yourself. If it is from God, established by God, would it not be considered spiritual in nature and eternal in character? Do you mean the kind of honesty that allows an individual to sit there time after time making an argument from a text he believes to be inaccurate, fanciful and complete fiction, specifically that of 1 and 2 Samuel. Or am I mistaken Paul and you actually do believe God to be its author and the miracles attributed to its pages and Gods intervention and direction in its content to be actual and believable.Come on Paul tell the readers from which platform you are proceeding and then speak to them concerning honesty.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Comical at best. First PaulK writes: Then he surprisingly he states: Belief in the God the text cries out for Paul is not prejudice and dogma. in fact it makes little or no sense without itexacally what part of the text are you using Paul. If i believe as you do that none of the miraculous things it are true, spoken by the same person from which you derive your arguments, why would you trust any of his statements of history. where exacally in history 9outside the scriptures)for example would you expect to find nathans comments to david concerning god building a house for him.I have tried to explain before there is no way to proceed without a common frame of reference. its simply a vicious circle. thanks for atleast making your position on it clear however.EAM

EMA correctly observespaulK mistakenly replies Then what is the point of your part here anyway then?Happily this is not my opinion, its in the text you are quoting. I can reproduce them if you want me toAlso, how in the world would you know if any conclusion you are basing your point on has any validity itself. Are you beginning to see the futility of tryng to argue from a 'portion' of the text and bury you head in the sand regarding the other. Oh dear,it seems that you have not been a critical thinker for very long. Since you have already admitted that neither the Old testament or New testament documents can be trusted in almost any regard, it would follow that you can only guess at what some guy that thought he was a prophet of God, might have been speaking about.It is for sure that you have no way of proceeding to conclude that:Quote "For the messianic prophecies we can look at them and see whether Jesus fulfilled them For the alleged Messianic prophecies we can read them in context, see what they really say - and if they are framed as predictions at all. " PaulKFor what they "really say" would DEPEND on the ENTIRE context which CLEARLY includes God as its AUTHOR, God as its SUSTAINER and God as its DEFINITION or INTERPRETATION. You get a 'C-' at an attempt at a rational thought process in this connection PaulKSecondly, the ENTIRE CONTEXT would determine whether we are discussing a spiritual matter or a stricly physical one.Since Nathan said, that the Lord himself said, he would establish the house of David, I dont see anyway you can keep this on some kind of physical or temporal level, do you?do you still want to talk about context? I bet your buddy Brian would not agree witht his statement and I bet in another thread you would argue just the opposite of what you are implying hereIf the entire context is not actual history, ie, the miracluous and God who cares anyway, correct. I told you it was avicious circle This is an odd statement, considering the fact that the only way brian would know whether jesus was a failure would to be examine the text of Old and Newbesides this Brians reasons were set out in the form of the messianic prohecies. what gives him the right to exclude Gods involvement in a context that says he was there all along.Our purpose here is not to PROVE, in the classical sense of the word, to him or you that jesus was ABSOLUTLEY this or that, he will have to decide that for himself. Ignoring very real possibities and realites, not to mention the ENTIRE context, will and can shed a different light on the question as to Jesus' successtherefore his and your dogmatic exclamations that Jesus was a failure quickly become less than absolute. As a matter of fact the reality of the fulfillments become even more obvious when the ENTIRE context is taken into considerationyou called this earlier, me bullying you out of the discussion when in fact it is the only logical way to proceed, atleast when discussing any document that in every other verse, it claims God did this or that, God is behind all of this or that its a funny thing, one moment you seem to argue for the CONTEXT aproach, then when it doesnt suit your purpose, you disavow it as irrelevant.curious way to proceedEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

thats pretty neat. i think the 74 and the years of experience speak louder than anything. Im sure there is alot of digging and studying behind those yearsAlways interesting to read your postsEAM

Trust me PaulK I am not being anymore insulting than brian or yourself. however with the above statement, surely you can see that I see you in no wise objective. it would take days simply to reproduce all of the passages that say God said this or that, or those that demonstrate he is involved in the processJust a different way of looking at things, I suppose. I think we have both made our points on this aspect. Please proceedEAM

yes, how could it be anything otherwise. Also,so indirectly you indicate that PaulK is wrong about God not being involved in the process and God not being the author of samuel and God not being the one that established Davids house, correct? We may be looking at some common ground. You agree that God is actually involved, correct?Not stricly ethereal, but spiritual there is a wide difference. God as its author involves moral and ethical standards and principles, not always attributed to a physical kingdom, ie, the sacrificing of animals for the forgiveness of sins. God as its author may have expanded meanings and intentions past a single time in history correct. Consider the following passages Gods intentions transcend a single place in time, or atleast they can and do appear as such in the scripture Was there a moral therefore spiritual principle involved for the sending of the pests? Quit being simplistic God never intended it to be a human leaderGod told Samuel to give them all they desired, because they had not rejected samuel but God that he should riegn over themI believe kings reign, correct There you go again with your blinders on, PurpleD. it not our time, its Gods time and purposes, in a pattern from the foundation of the world goodness man its not in one passage, its in its entirity. tell me what the verse i just quoted above says to you PurpleD? So because it was past the time of Samuel, God no longer desired to reign over them?eventually he would in the nature of the messiah and king. there will be no end to his ruleEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn to David my servant, (4) your seed will I establish for ever, and build up your throne to all generations. Selah.
Ps. 89
(35) Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie to David. (36) His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. (37) It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Purpledawn writes;Its so ironic that you should instruct someone to KEEP READING
Your tunnel vision doesnt allow you to see that there is always more involved where God is involved. Even in these passages below it should be easily understood that a principle can carry forward, whether the person is still around or not. when for example could we say that Moses' or Christs righteouness ceased or does it still continue to this day and forever.where God is involved, these passages CAN and DO have greater meaning, than simply that which was promised to David in particular. it simply takes the totality of those passages to see the ultimate message and purpose for which God intended.why for example should we assume that Gods statement to Abraham, "through thy seed shall all the nations of the earth shall be blessed",Should be something God actually said to Abraham, then assume that an inspired Apostles explanation of this same statement, in the nature of christ, should be less than accurate as inspired?In this instance one could see how Gods purposes were literally meant to last FOREVER, even if a single person was or was not around. Even if we assume that only the writer that spoke of Abrahams promise by God, was inspired, does not the promise to Abraham go on forever.that is if we ascribe as much reverance to the Apostles as you seem to give the writers of the old testament. that is also, if we ascribe God in the process of the New Testament, as you seem to imply in the Old testament. or am I incorrect in my assumptions concerning your views of the Old testamentif you literally accept God, as in the text, involved in t he process
and take the totality of scripture concerning an issue, there is no reason to believe that forever cannot have a deeper meaning as in the example I have provided in Abraham
EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I thought God was the ultimate author? You dont seem to be very skilled in discussion, due to t he fact that i offered PRINCIPLE and the SACRIFICAL act required by God as a principle for forgiveness of sin or attonment"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin" well this displays alot about your entire position that was not clear up to this point, all in you one statement above. Do you mean to tell me that you cannot deduce from the scriptures that is was not Gods original intention for HIM TO BE THIER ONLY KING?Im afraid that this statement also implies that you have no intention of being objective not if the author was God By back story do you mean God not actually in the process. by backstory do you mean to imply the writers of the New testament were not inspired as they claimed, like thoseof the old its in the entirity od scripture PD, to include the New testament. here is one from the Old now tell me if we should take the entirity of scripture concerning gods intentions? tell me whether this is a spiritual principleEAM

But herein lies you problem PD and it is my guess that you are probably nothing more than a deist wrap in some form of religious garb.BTW, dont put that down as an argument just yet, its a simple observation that i accidentally verbalized. If however, I am wrong then by all means explain what your position on God, miracles and the such like may be. But that is simply just a suggestion not a demand, to help the discussion alongYou are correct PD, that particular verse does not address in DETAIL all of Gods intentions concerning Davids throne, but the rest of the book that claims to be from God does and the same God that made or inspired that statement speaks of sacrfice for the forgiveness of sins and many miraculous and spiritual things.The rest of the scriptures Old and New WILL lead you to Jesus. i have already mentioned and addmitted its not contained in one verse.You feel the walls closing in on your argument because it is my guess that you dont really believe God was involved in any of this or that any of these writers were actually guided by God in thier formation. And no, that is not another topic when we are discussing a text repleat with God, intervention, inspiration and it claiming in nearly every other word, God saying I will do this or that Your problem is that you are to exclusive concerning the word forever, certainly it can mean a fixed period or an indefinate period but in connection with God it can also mean forever.Oh I think there is a very good reason you dont want to respond to most of my arguments and passages, as you keep avoiding them directly, because they throw a wrench in your mostly humanistic approach, to a text that without question demands otherwise.But if your humanist approach makes you happy just stick with it But the verses he quoted are after God had made his original intentions known to the prophet. But that is assuming we are CONCERNED with what Gods intentions were in the first place.Oh yeah thats right, you said it doesnt matter what God intended and what God intended was irrelevant.Back to square one PD. Gods intentions and plans are not summed up in one verse. thats assuming you actually believe God has anything to with any of this in the first place Since I thought it would be obvious to anyone what I meant by spiritual ie, having to do with or relating to God, or God as a spirit and his plans, methods and ideas over vast periods of time, perhaps you could tell me exacally what you believe God is or is not, soo as to clear up any confusion.here is a couple of simple questions. Would you say that forgiveness of sins by animal sacrifice was a plan God gave to the Irsaelites in his law to them in the old testament.Would you say that forgiveness of a moral principle as sin, is repleat throughout the Old and new testaments.Would you say that because God is the one that institued such things (atleast in the old and New testaments), that these could be considered spiritual principles, since God is described as spirit?I cant believe Im actually formulating such questions, but anywho, what would you say?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

In debate this is called 'Wave of the hand'. With a wave of the hand you think you can dismiss, what the actual context says concerning whos kingdom it actually is, you think you can ignore the context that DIRECTLY implies Gods involvement in the process. You think you can get your audience to not pay attention to the context if you keep repeating Physical, Physical. Guess what PD it doesnt work.Perhaps they should start a catergory of Bible Study here called, 'In context bible study', 'Out of context bible study' and 'Whatever anybody chooses to use in the context Bible study'My goodness man, how in the world have I rendered the word spiritual meaningless, when that is all I have been contending for in the context. ignoring the spirituality involved in the text and topic by yourself, does not go unnoticed by your audienceEMA writes: PD writes:Im sorry did I miss read something in the Old law By whom and for what reason? really, and it is not my intention to be funny here but what would you say of Professional boxing, the UFC and pro football. Would you say these are stricly Manly sports. Sometimes when something is instituted it is with the express purpose of including men for obvious reasons. That makes it manly.And you should ignore at this point that my wife can kick the crap out of me at any point, that is generally not the norm. But lets forget about that at present. in fact forget I even mentioned itWhen something is instituted by God it is therefore spiritual in its purposes, plans and methods. Indeed how can it be anything elseIts Gods kingdom and therefore spiritual.Peg writes and quotesOn this point atleast, this passage forever more settles the question of what and who we are dealing with, so the conclusion should be obvious. That is, if as the context DIRECTLY STATES God is its author and all of the Old testament passages (Not just One or Two) are taken into consideration, along with the inspired New Testament writings and distinct plan and purpose unfolds in the nature of Christ as king and Messiah.It is not necessary for every single person to agree on this point for it to be valid. but to go to the other extreme and suggest that this is ABSOLUTLEY WAS NOT GODS PLAN and to suggest that it cannot be demonstrated in any reasonable fashion is simply ureasonable and unobjectiveBrian refers to this as ingenuity and imagination, but there is no valid reason to assume that inspiration was not involved in the whole process. As a matter of fact I dont see how anyone could come to any other conclusion when all is considered and studiedEAMThis is funny, as soon as I was done with this post I walked back to t he bedroom where she was watching the food network with some big Guy whipping up a meal. Lets just drop my observation in this connection altogether. Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Peg writes:PaulK writes:Actually not at all Paul, no one is running away from you, you are running away from the the ENTIRE text which you suggests supports your position. The discusssion was over when you and Purpledawn refused to acknowledge the following very sound textual comments and points by Peg, myself and othersPaulK writes: Peg writesPaulK writes: Peg writes:The discussion was actually over when you did not and have not dealt objectively with these passagesYou have steadfastly ignored, just like Purpledawn, the part of God in this process. You have steadfastly ignored, that this is Gods throne, not a physical throne and it was never intended to be exclusively a physical throne, that was simply part of the process. You have steadfastly ignored Pegs references to Gods intentions after Israels disobedience and his continued attention to a throne that was meant to be Gods throne.Yours and Purpledawns closet agnosticism, shines through like a lighthouse beam on a dark night. Your arrogance in assuming that someone is running from your so-called arguments is as about as silly as you taking God AND HIS THRONE out of the context to make it purely a physical process.the numerous passages that Peg has quoted and referenced closes the door on your arrogance and idiocyWhen entering a Bible study the next time, it should be desirous on your part to include the entirity of what the Bible has to say on a subject, ie, its Gods throne, not Davids or Solomoms and all the other spiritual related comments in scripture, to support your position. Do you and purpledawn, think that any serious reader is not aware of the fact that you have tried to reduce this entire discussion to physical matters without any SERIOUS consideration for God in the process.Do you think any serious reader is not aware that you have nearly categorically ignored vital passages that would speak to the nature and purpose of the kingdom, I Chron 29:23.Peg has departed because there is no real objectivity, when conducting a so-called Bible study by yourself and Purpledawn
Really PaulK, you should stick to an area where you can atleast be objective. Running PaulK? hardlyEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Now you are starting to get the point PD, your right, there is ESSENTIALLY no difference between a physical kingdom and a spiritual one where God is its author and finisher. Physical matter is spiritual matter of some sort if God is all that there actually is, correct Where did I ever say it wasnt physical in some respects. this type of statement by yourself is designed to cause prejudice on your part twords myself in the readers mind. All I am saying is that if God is its author and finisher, (AS YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE WITH YOUR CLOSET AGNOSTCISM and which the scriptures more than indicate)its plans can and are explicated in more than one verse, somewhere.The overall intentions of Gods kingdom on earth will be found in the entirity of Gods word. the entirity of Gods extended and expaned plans will be found in the entirity of Gods word, not a single verse or some half baked idea you have ascribed to the context, to which you continually ignore God in the ENTIRE contextEAM writes: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Purpledawn writes:If its Gods kingdom, its where God decides for it to be at any given time. Certainly Gods is everywhere, but he chose to let the people think he resided in the Mountain early on, so as to be point of reference, then it was the Ark, then it was the tabernacle, then it was the temple, now its the HEARTS OF MEN.Even if it is, at some point in the future, as Buz believes, some physical throne in jeruselum, this will in no way make it not spiritual. How could it be anything but spiritual in actuality, whre a spirit being is involvedofcouse its with living people, but what does that have to do with God himself, his kingdom , his OVERALL PLANS, his intentions and ultimate purpose Ofcourse the scriptures make it very clear where the kingdom of God is or is notEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.